Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful boundary information (maximum depth 2, 10 results), but does not explain how the inverse/hierarchy flags change the traversal, what happens at the depth limit, or the shape of the result set.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and the bounding constraints at the end. It is efficient, though slightly terse given the seven parameters it must orient the caller around.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a traversal tool with no output schema and nothing but 0%-covered schema fields, the description leaves gaps: result format, behavior of prop/lang filtering, and what inverse/hierarchy actually return are unspecified. It is adequate but not complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description bears full responsibility for the 7 parameters, and it only partially compensates: it hints at the depth and limit caps and gestures at inverse/hierarchy via 'outgoing, inverse or hierarchy'. Parameters like id, lang, and prop receive no meaning beyond what their terse schema titles imply.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action (retrieving relationships) on a specific resource (one Wikidata QID) and quantifies its boundedness. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like kg_entity, kg_search, and kg_lookup_entities, which retrieve entities rather than traverse relationships, though it does not name them explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites or alternatives, and no indication of when this should be preferred over kg_entity or kg_search. The traversal intent is implied only by the word 'relationships'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.